New York Times Crashed-and-Burned-and-Smoking Watch (Jim Rutenberg Edition)
Starting with the headline, paragraphs 1 through 9 of Jim Rutenberg's article are opinions-on-shape-of-earth-differ garbage. He waits until paragraph 10 to tell his readers the truth about Betsy McCaughey. Starting at paragraph 10, however, the article becomes good for a few paragraphs:
McCaughey, Unlikely Critic of Obama’s Health Care Plan: She incorrectly stated in July that a Democratic bill in the House would mandate “people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner,” drawing a “Pants on Fire” rating from the Politifact fact-checking Web site; her false assertion that the presidential health adviser Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel believes “medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled” helped form the basis for former Gov. Sarah Palin’s discredited warning that Mr. Obama would create “death panels” to decide who is “worthy of health care.” Far from isolating her, it has all seemed to raise her profile to levels not seen since she left office, making her a regular guest on cable, radio and even last month, on “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central. (The host, Jon Stewart, said he found her analysis “hyperbolic and in some cases dangerous.”)...
Before Rutenberg remembers that he is a coward and wimps out again:
[H]er criticisms are reminiscent of a trademark style of argument that, while effective in grabbing attention on national issues, frequently comes into dispute as out of bounds. “Sometimes, I think she is on to something,” said Ann Northrop, a longtime activist on AIDS and gay and lesbian issues who has been friends with Ms. McCaughey, her political near-opposite, since they were freshman roommates at Vassar. “Other times, I think she is 100 miles out to sea.... I have absolute, complete faith in her sincerity. When something like this comes up,” Betsy, for better or for worse, feels like she has a responsibility to look at the bill in detail because she feels — rightly so — that so few people do.” And so it was that Ms. McCaughey, who earned a doctorate in constitutional history at Columbia University, in 1994 wrote a scathing critique in The New Republic of President Bill Clinton’s plan while a scholar at the Manhattan Institute. The piece, credited with helping to kill the plan, won a National Magazine Award. It also won the attention of Mr. Pataki, who tapped her to run as his lieutenant governor.
"style of argument that... frequently comes into dispute as out of bounds"? How about, Mr. Rutenberg, changing that to "style of argument in which she tells lots of lies"? Like this one:
[McCaughey's] assertion that “[Clinton's] law will prevent you from going outside the system to buy basic health coverage you think is better,” though the House bill specifically stated it would not prohibit “an individual from purchasing any health care services...”
